Matthew S Robertson1, Xinyang Liu1, William Plishker2, George F Zaki2, Pranav K Vyas1, Nabile M Safdar1, Raj Shekhar3,4. 1. Sheikh Zayed Institute for Pediatric Surgical Innovation, Children's National Health System, 111 Michigan Ave. NW, Washington, DC, 20010, USA. 2. IGI Technologies, Inc., College Park, MD, USA. 3. Sheikh Zayed Institute for Pediatric Surgical Innovation, Children's National Health System, 111 Michigan Ave. NW, Washington, DC, 20010, USA. rshekhar@childrensnational.org. 4. IGI Technologies, Inc., College Park, MD, USA. rshekhar@childrensnational.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: With the introduction of hybrid positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging (PET/MRI), a new imaging option to acquire multimodality images with complementary anatomical and functional information has become available. Compared with hybrid PET/computed tomography (CT), hybrid PET/MRI is capable of providing superior anatomical detail while removing the radiation exposure associated with CT. The early adoption of hybrid PET/MRI, however, has been limited. OBJECTIVE: To provide a viable alternative to the hybrid PET/MRI hardware by validating a software-based solution for PET-MR image coregistration. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A fully automated, graphics processing unit-accelerated 3-D deformable image registration technique was used to align PET (acquired as PET/CT) and MR image pairs of 17 patients (age range: 10 months-21 years, mean: 10 years) who underwent PET/CT and body MRI (chest, abdomen or pelvis), which were performed within a 28-day (mean: 10.5 days) interval. MRI data for most of these cases included single-station post-contrast axial T1-weighted images. Following registration, maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) values observed in coregistered PET (cPET) and the original PET were compared for 82 volumes of interest. In addition, we calculated the target registration error as a measure of the quality of image coregistration, and evaluated the algorithm's performance in the context of interexpert variability. RESULTS: The coregistration execution time averaged 97±45 s. The overall relative SUVmax difference was 7% between cPET-MRI and PET/CT. The average target registration error was 10.7±6.6 mm, which compared favorably with the typical voxel size (diagonal distance) of 8.0 mm (typical resolution: 0.66 mm × 0.66 mm × 8 mm) for MRI and 6.1 mm (typical resolution: 3.65 mm × 3.65 mm × 3.27 mm) for PET. The variability in landmark identification did not show statistically significant differences between the algorithm and a typical expert. CONCLUSION: We have presented a software-based solution that achieves the many benefits of hybrid PET/MRI scanners without actually needing one. The method proved to be accurate and potentially clinically useful.
BACKGROUND: With the introduction of hybrid positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance imaging (PET/MRI), a new imaging option to acquire multimodality images with complementary anatomical and functional information has become available. Compared with hybrid PET/computed tomography (CT), hybrid PET/MRI is capable of providing superior anatomical detail while removing the radiation exposure associated with CT. The early adoption of hybrid PET/MRI, however, has been limited. OBJECTIVE: To provide a viable alternative to the hybrid PET/MRI hardware by validating a software-based solution for PET-MR image coregistration. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A fully automated, graphics processing unit-accelerated 3-D deformable image registration technique was used to align PET (acquired as PET/CT) and MR image pairs of 17 patients (age range: 10 months-21 years, mean: 10 years) who underwent PET/CT and body MRI (chest, abdomen or pelvis), which were performed within a 28-day (mean: 10.5 days) interval. MRI data for most of these cases included single-station post-contrast axial T1-weighted images. Following registration, maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) values observed in coregistered PET (cPET) and the original PET were compared for 82 volumes of interest. In addition, we calculated the target registration error as a measure of the quality of image coregistration, and evaluated the algorithm's performance in the context of interexpert variability. RESULTS: The coregistration execution time averaged 97±45 s. The overall relative SUVmax difference was 7% between cPET-MRI and PET/CT. The average target registration error was 10.7±6.6 mm, which compared favorably with the typical voxel size (diagonal distance) of 8.0 mm (typical resolution: 0.66 mm × 0.66 mm × 8 mm) for MRI and 6.1 mm (typical resolution: 3.65 mm × 3.65 mm × 3.27 mm) for PET. The variability in landmark identification did not show statistically significant differences between the algorithm and a typical expert. CONCLUSION: We have presented a software-based solution that achieves the many benefits of hybrid PET/MRI scanners without actually needing one. The method proved to be accurate and potentially clinically useful.
Authors: David Mattes; David R Haynor; Hubert Vesselle; Thomas K Lewellen; William Eubank Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 10.048
Authors: Cornelia B Brendle; Holger Schmidt; Sabrina Fleischer; Uli H Braeuning; Christina A Pfannenberg; Nina F Schwenzer Journal: Radiology Date: 2013-05-08 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Marco Wiesmüller; Harald H Quick; Bharath Navalpakkam; Michael M Lell; Michael Uder; Philipp Ritt; Daniela Schmidt; Michael Beck; Torsten Kuwert; Carl C von Gall Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2012-10-06 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Philipp Heusch; Christian Buchbender; Karsten Beiderwellen; Felix Nensa; Verena Hartung-Knemeyer; Thomas C Lauenstein; Andreas Bockisch; Michael Forsting; Gerald Antoch; Till A Heusner Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2013-02-08 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Bennett B Chin; Edward D Green; Timothy G Turkington; Thomas C Hawk; R Edward Coleman Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2008-11-27 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Sharif Kershah; Sasan Partovi; Bryan J Traughber; Raymond F Muzic; Mark D Schluchter; James K O'Donnell; Peter Faulhaber Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Holger Schmidt; Cornelia Brendle; Christina Schraml; Petros Martirosian; Ilja Bezrukov; Jürgen Hetzel; Mark Müller; Alexander Sauter; Claus D Claussen; Christina Pfannenberg; Nina F Schwenzer Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2013-05 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Artur Agaronyan; Raeyan Syed; Ryan Kim; Chao-Hsiung Hsu; Scott A Love; Jacob M Hooker; Alicia E Reid; Paul C Wang; Nobuyuki Ishibashi; Yeona Kang; Tsang-Wei Tu Journal: Front Neuroanat Date: 2022-01-14 Impact factor: 3.856